Public Bill Committee

[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]

Further written evidence to be reported to the House

TRI 16 MENAI — Professional enforcement services

Clause 129

Protected objects

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 179, in clause 129, page 99, line 17, after ‘gallery’, insert—
‘(da) the museum or gallery has, within 72 hours of the arrival of the object in the United Kingdom, given the Secretary of State details of the object, including its provenance and ownership,’.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 181, in clause 129, page 99, line 18, after ‘with’, insert
‘the Due Diligence Guidelines for Museums, Libraries and Archives on Collecting and Borrowing Cultural Material published from time to time by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and’.
No. 182, in clause 129, page 99, line 20, at end insert 
‘(including provenance and, if appropriate, ownership) on a public register for the purpose of inviting any person who asserts a claim to that object to raise an objection to its inclusion in the exhibition within a specified period.’.
No. 180, in clause 129, page 99, line 22, at end insert—
‘(3A) The Secretary of State must publish the details of an object which are given to him under subsection (2)(da).’.
No. 187, in clause 129, page 100, line 7, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘shall’.
No. 188, in clause 129, page 100, line 10, at end insert 
‘, including circumstances where a museum or gallery decides not to include an object in an exhibition or where a lender withdraws permission.’.
No. 189, in clause 129, page 100, line 10, at end insert—
‘(9A) The Secretary of State shall make regulations for the establishment of an independent committee to monitor the publication and reporting of specified information, the compliance of museums and galleries with the Due Diligence Guidelines for Museums, Libraries and Archives on Collecting and Borrowing Cultural Material published from time to time by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and the handling of claims made or objections raised in relation to any object.’.
No. 153, in clause 131, page 101, line 2, leave out from ‘objects’ to end of line 4 and insert—
 ‘(2A) It shall be a condition of such approval that any approved institution has agreed to apply to each and every protected object the Due Diligence Guidelines for Museums, Libraries and Archives on Collecting and Borrowing Cultural Material published from time to time by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.’.

Simon Hughes: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 179 and 180, which were tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central, and to amendment No. 153, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk and to which we have added our names.
This is the first debate on part 6, so we are making good progress; indeed, I anticipate that we might make such good progress that we will not be here at the bitter end of the permitted time. The protection of cultural objects is an important part of the Bill, even if it is quite surprising to find it there. As was discussed in the House of Lords, it is slightly odd to find a part of this Bill that is about museums, galleries and works of art, but there is a link that justifies such measures and their accommodation under the long title. It is about whether people can enforce rights on cultural objects on loan in this country, so there is a tenuous link to the Bill that allows its inclusion—the Bill is the next most convenient vehicle for addressing the issue available to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
Clause 129 sets out what objects on loan to UK museums and galleries—this is a UK-wide provision; it is not just for England and Wales—would have protection when complying to certain conditions. The clause contains five conditions that must be met for an object to be protected, but amendment No. 179 suggests that there should be a sixth condition.
Obviously, all members of the Committee will be conscious that this part of the Bill was significantly debated, discussed and, indeed, amended by the Government in Grand Committee in the House of Lords. I wish to pay tribute to my party colleagues, as will other hon. Members. Lord Thomas and Lord Maclennan spoke for the Liberal Democrats in what was a consensual and well informed debate, and Baroness Ashton was positive about the representations that they made to get the balance right. I am conscious that the clause has already been amended as a result of debates in the House of Lords. 
I shall make four short points. First, all hon. Members privileged enough to have great museums or galleries in their constituencies are aware that they do a fantastic job and that they have been still more able to do their work as a result of the Government policy of making premier museums and galleries free to the public. That will be one of the great legacies of this Administration, whatever arguments we might have about other matters. Those of us who go regularly to museums and galleries are very proud of those jewels in the British cultural crown. We have the opportunity to say how wonderful the museums and galleries in our constituencies are, and I certainly wish to take that opportunity now, as I would have done even if the director general of the Imperial War museum had not written to me about the subject that we are debating. The museum is almost within our sight—it is housed in the old Bethlehem hospital, the original bedlam, on the Lambeth road. It is a wonderful museum and I commend it to members of the Committee who have not been there. I was privileged to be there again last week for the 90th birthday of Dame Vera Lynn and last Saturday for my surgery, which I am kindly permitted to hold there on a regular basis.
Another contribution of the great Imperial War museum is HMS Belfast, which is also in my constituency. It provides a wonderful, well-used opportunity for people to experience a real vessel that served this country during the last war. The director general led on such issues on behalf of museums and galleries until last year. He said, as have others, that he and his colleagues are happy to comply with the changes made to the Bill by the Lords, but that we must get the balance right and not have too onerous a set of obligations that makes the ability to transfer goods, property and objects of art across national boundaries more difficult or actually stops it happening.
By definition, one of the great opportunities for all museums and galleries is to show works of art that are not based in their particular country. What brings in crowds in their greatest numbers, whether to the Tate Modern or the National Gallery, is when an exhibition shows the collected works of Velasquez, Rubens, David Hockney or Gilbert and George. Such collections could comprise works by one artist, from one period or of one type, or as in the case of the Imperial War museum, works that demonstrate the effect of the holocaust or the trenches in world war one. We must encourage the sharing of cultural objects throughout the world.
My noble Friend Lord Maclennan of Rogart said that the best context in which to share cultural objects throughout the world is organisations such as UNESCO, which is based in Paris. Ideally, we need legislation that is applicable in all countries rather than one country. Such a measure needs a common legislative basis. I am not arguing that it should be done through the European Union or in another way; of course, it should be done nationally, but by agreement along the lines of the good work of the Council of Europe and the United Nations.
My second point does not collide with the desire for protection if objects of art are borrowed from abroad for temporary exhibitions. The wish to make sure that works of art illegally stolen, looted or taken from their owners at different times in history can be returned has obviously been on the agenda here and worldwide. The most commonly argued case concerns objects of art that were taken as a result of the Nazi governance of Germany, the invasion of many European countries by Hitler and the holocaust. It has been argued strongly that works of art are still being looted from families and homes in Poland and elsewhere which, if they reappear, must be returned to their rightful owners. That applies not only to families who lost family members or relatives in the terrible, terrible holocaust tragedy, but to countries that have been subject to military invasions and the unauthorised taking of property.
The amendments that were accepted by the other place and those before us today are trying to strike the right balance. I am grateful, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central, to all those who have made their views clear. We have taken account of what they said. The specific condition in amendment No. 179 is that there should be an ability and a requirement that those who import works of art temporarily lodge such information with the Secretary of State in an official place within 72 hours of the works arriving here. We would therefore know what was on loan in the United Kingdom, where it came from and
“the details of the object, including its provenance and ownership”.
The straightforward effect of amendment No. 180 would be that when that information was supplied to the Government, it would be published so that everybody could see what was here at a particular time. 
Amendment No. 153 applies to clause 131, which deals with “Relevant museums and galleries” and defines which museums and galleries will be covered by the requirements. We shall debate later other amendments that would change that definition slightly. Clause 131 sets out both how a museum or gallery will be defined and the criteria for approval of those places as approved institutions. One of the conditions, set out in clause 131(2)(a), is that there will be approved procedures
“for establishing the provenance and ownership of objects”.
We shall debate later whether to keep clause 131(2)(b), which leaves it to the Secretary of State to set out guidance, or insert something more specific.
Amendment No. 153, which is a joint Conservative-Liberal Democrat amendment, would add the condition precedent:
“It shall be a condition of such approval that any approved institution has agreed to apply to each and every protected object the Due Diligence Guidelines for Museums, Libraries and Archives on Collecting and Borrowing Cultural Material published from time to time by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport.”
That suggests that in order to tick the boxes and be an approved institution, a museum or gallery should need to agree to apply due diligence guidelines. There was a big debate in the Lords about having those guidelines, and nobody disagrees that they should exist. The amendment is about recognising the fact that they do.
My last point on this group of amendments applies also to the later amendments to clause 129. It is important that we do not impose requirements that are so impracticable, onerous or financially burdensome that they would make the exercise of the provisions impossible and make it impossible for objects of art to be transferred and shown. There is a big legal point behind that: if somebody carries out due diligence and checks to ensure that an object is an authentic work and is honestly owned and lent, a later claim that needs to be pursued may still arise.
The international community, private owners, private galleries and people who have lost things that belonged to them or their families, ancestors or community need as easy a process as possible in international law for ensuring that they can get their property back. We need easy legal processes and ways in which goods can honestly be returned to people. That is a slightly different exercise—of course, there are links—from ensuring that we protect the transfer of works of art.
Everybody wants to see the maximum possible number of works of art. We want them mounted, exposed and displayed, not hidden away in basements, lockers, safes and vaults. We want them in the public domain to be looked at, not in private houses where nobody can see them. As far as that is possible, it is fantastic. Of course, we must ensure that if something is discovered to be in the wrong hands there is as quick, fair, uncomplicated and inexpensive as possible a process for recovering it.
I hope that, at the end of our deliberations in Committee and downstairs, we will get the balance right. We have been pretty well getting a consensus and the amendments suggest what might be a final, small set of adjustments to complete the process. I hope that the Committee is positive about them, and I look forward to hearing what other hon. Members have to say.

Henry Bellingham: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mrs. Humble. I agree with what the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey said. I shall speak to the amendments standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends.
The hon. Gentleman explained why it is important for Britain to remain the major centre for world class exhibitions. He said that those exhibitions are popular and important to London’s cultural base because they often draw pictures from around the world. He mentioned the Reubens exhibition. I was fortunate enough to see the Renoir exhibition at the National Gallery the other day, in which a number of Renoirs from around the world had been collected together.
I accept that there have been problems over the threat posed to some works of art. In the debate in the other place and on Second Reading, a number of examples were alluded to, including the loan of works of art by Russia to Switzerland. Those works were seized on the basis of the debt that Russia owed to Switzerland. Russia then made it clear to Britain that unless immunity provisions were put in place, its museums would be most unlikely to lend certain works of art to Britain.
We also heard about how a gallery here was trying to borrow works of art from Taiwan. The works were tainted, however, because the People’s Republic of China claimed that they had been given to Taiwan by the former Chinese leader, Chiang Kai-shek, and therefore were rightly the property of the People’s Republic and not of Taiwan.
Concerns were therefore expressed, and I think that the Government were right to take action. I certainly agreed with the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey when he asked whether provisions should be tacked on to the Bill. In the long title, there is scope for such provision, but we do not want to get into an argument about that. I would far rather have had a dedicated Bill considered with real focus in both Chambers. We could have had longer debates on all the important issues. Indeed, many legitimate concerns have been expressed about this part of the Bill. The Commission for Looted Art in Europe, the Board of Deputies of British Jews and a number of academics have come up with various comments about what we are doing. It is perfectly legitimate to argue that we are putting Britain in a different position regarding the granting of immunity to a number of other countries. It may be that other hon. Members would like to discuss that point.
Let us look at some of the comments made by academics. I would like to quote Professor Norman Palmer, who is an expert on the subject. He is emeritus professor of the law of art and cultural property at University college London and visiting professor of law at King’s college London, and more importantly, he was chairman of the illicit trade advisory panel, chairman of a working group on human remains and museum collections and a member of a spoliation advisory panel. He is still on that advisory panel. Professor Palmer said:
“There is room for concern that the enhanced security of possession to be conferred on borrowing museums by an anti-seizure statute could tempt museums to become less vigilant in the monitoring of loans. Museums might be inclined to think that, because no legal proceedings can be taken against them during the loan period, there is no compelling reason for them to make positive inquiries about the origins and history of the objects they borrow.
I believe that such a development would be regrettable. It would subordinate ethics to law and undo much of the good that has been achieved in recent years.
Many third party claims against museums involve spoliated objects. To deny a Holocaust survivor access to justice is an austere and arguably disproportionate response to the administrative, economic and cultural concerns of lenders and borrowers, however legitimate those concerns. The denial may be particularly distressing where the object is the only tangible reminder of a lost family or home.”
 Those are strong words indeed. Many other leading academics take a similar point of view. What they are saying is that there is also a strong possibility that the legislation amounts to a derogation from the UK’s commitment not to borrow or acquire Nazi-tainted art, as laid down in the 1998 Washington principles on Nazi-confiscated art. Those principles are endorsed and adopted by the UK and by the 1998 NMDC—National Museums Directors Conference—statement of principles and proposed action on the spoliation of works of art during the holocaust and world war two period.
The Government have rightly looked at some of those concerns and made a number of amendments, so one has to give praise where it is due. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out that there had been changes to due diligence procedures. There are changes in connection with the publication on a public register of lists of objects to be borrowed prior to their arrival in the country, and museums will be required to publish that specified information for a set period. Five or six amendments were made, but there are still a number of concerns. I accept entirely that the Government have moved some way to acknowledge the legitimacy of the concerns raised by a range of groups and individuals. On the other hand, the amended Bill still leaves potential claimants without the full protection that we feel they ought to have. I should like to have a quick look at some of the areas of ongoing concern, and then discuss specifically what we seek to do in our amendments.
Let us look first at due diligence. The Government have accepted that due diligence should be carried out by museums, but it is not intended that that will be mandatory. That is a real concern, because there will be no continuing oversight. Neither, in my judgment, is the regime of spot checks likely to be effective. The Department for Media, Culture and Sport is focusing on the run-up to the 2012 Olympics, and a huge amount of its effort is going into ensuring that all aspects of preparation for the Olympic games go according to plan. Is it going to have the expertise and resources to ensure that the spot checks are carried out properly? Would it not be better if due diligence were laid out clearly in the Bill? I suggest that that would make sense.
We are also concerned about the publication of provenance and ownership information. Let me explain why. Publication will provide a safeguard only if it includes comprehensive information on an object’s history, identity and current ownership, such that a deprived owner is able to recognise it. Where preliminary due diligence has persuaded a museum that a loan should not go ahead, that too should be the subject of full disclosure and proper publication.
On the notice period, in order for potential claimants to be able to recognise their property and express concerns, there must be a sufficient period for them to do so, particularly as many potential claimants are likely to live in different countries spread far and wide. The Government said that they are minded to bring in a fairly short period, but we feel that that is inadequate. The Government have now indicated that they are looking at a two-month period. Opposition Members would submit, however, that three months would be an appropriate period, given all the obstacles and difficulties that any potential claimant is likely to face and the fact that claimants will almost certainly be in different far-flung countries.
As to identifying a stolen or looted work of art on the register, in order for publication of a register of prospective loans to be meaningful, there must be a formal procedure for registering claims and obtaining further information and assistance regarding any claim from the DCMS and institutions concerned. We feel strongly about that. It is also important to bear it in mind that the DCMS has stated that if a serious objection is raised during the notice period, an object that has arrived in the UK and been granted immunity is unlikely to be included in the relevant exhibition. I do not feel that that should be left to the discretion of the museum. If an object has been the subject of serious objections, saying “unlikely” is not good enough; there should be no question of its being included in the exhibition.
 On approved status, the Government have addressed some of the problems by agreeing that only certain museums and galleries will be able to benefit from the legislation, but we are concerned that the Secretary of State will not be obliged to withdraw approval if an approved museum falls well short in its practice of due diligence. If the due diligence exercise is not mandatory, all that the Government will be required to do is consider the situation. There is too much flexibility in such an arrangement, and I suggest that in such circumstances the Secretary of State should have a duty to withdraw approval in order to ensure compliance.
Our amendments address many of our concerns. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey  has explained his amendments, and I should like first to look at amendment No. 181, which would insert these words:
“the Due Diligence Guidelines for Museums, Libraries and Archives on Collecting and Borrowing Cultural Material published from time to time by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport”.
 Those guidelines should be published by the DCMS, and they should appear in the Bill. That is essential, for reasons that I have given. The spot check concept will not be anything like strong enough. Amendment No. 153 is linked to that. Although it applies to clause 131, it is consequential. It would insert a new subsection (2A), which again makes our point about due diligence.
Amendment No. 182 would insert these words at the end of clause 129(2)(e):
“(including provenance and, if appropriate, ownership) on a public register for the purpose of inviting any person who asserts a claim to that object to raise an objection to its inclusion in the exhibition within a specified period.”
Again, that would make substantial sense, and it would go some way towards correcting the problem that I identified earlier.
Amendment No. 187 would take out “may” and insert “shall”. That, too, is self-explanatory. For the reasons that I gave earlier, we should be more specific about what can and cannot be done. Subsection (9) would be a great deal stronger if it said that the Secretary of State “shall” make regulations, rather than “may” make them. If the Bill is to have real impact and bite, and serve the purposes the Government intend, changing the language from “may” to “shall” would make substantial sense.

Brooks Newmark: I am sure that the Minister thinks that we are being pedantic, but continual use of “may” lends a sense of ambiguity to the Bill. Putting in stronger wording reinforces the point and is very much in the spirit of what the Government are trying to achieve.

Henry Bellingham: I agree fully with my hon. Friend. As things stand, we are looking at guidelines being put into regulations and at a lot of secondary legislation. With much of this part of the Bill being skeletal, we are looking at a great deal of scope being given to the Secretary of State.
As the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out, making this part of the Bill work successfully is a balancing exercise between the crucial need to ensure that London retains its eminent status as the world’s number one centre for culture and exhibitions and, at the same time, the protection of the rights of individual families who have suffered unspeakable grief, terror and violence, which are beyond words. We have to respect and protect their rights as well. Instead of relying on two Departments to get together cosily, to liaise, to impose a regime of spot checks and—possibly or possibly not—to make regulations, we are saying that the Bill should state that the Secretary of State “shall” make those regulations.
 Flowing from that “shall”, we have tabled amendment No. 188. I will read out the entire subsection:
“The Secretary of State may”—
under our proposal, the subsection would say “shall”—
“make regulations requiring a museum or gallery to provide persons with specified information about an object in specified circumstances (which may include in particular compliance with conditions imposed by or under the regulations).”
Then we would insert
“including circumstances where a museum or gallery decides not to include an object in an exhibition or where a lender withdraws permission.”
That follows on from the point that I made a moment ago.
We would also insert proposed new subsection (9A), which is important and follows on from my earlier points. It states:
“The Secretary of State shall make regulations”
and then we talk again about due diligence, which is vital. Amendment No. 153 brings the due diligence requirements and guidelines into clause 131.
 As I said, we could debate the matter for a long time. I accept that the debate is partly on clause stand part, because we are talking about general issues. Many of the amendments touch on a lot of different aspects of the clause. All the organisations involved, which have been extremely patient and given generously of their time to brief members of the Committee, Ministers and shadow Ministers, are grateful to the Government for the amendments that they have introduced. However, on reflection, those organisations feel that the Government now need to make some further concessions.
 None of our amendments is in any way going to cause excessive inconvenience to galleries, museums and exhibitors. We are not in the business of complicated rules and regulations, or of stifling the innovation or the verve and panache shown by so many of this country’s exhibitors. They show that day in and day out, which is why they attract such amazing exhibitions, not just to London but to other cities and towns.

Brooks Newmark: Again, I do not want to labour the point, but it sounds to me, listening to my hon. Friend, that all he is trying to do is to give some teeth to the moral and ethical guidelines laid down in the statement by the National Museum Directors Conference. All we trying to do is to give some bite, and not to have vagueness in the language that the Government seem to be obsessed with.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I would not say “bite” or “teeth”, because that sounds almost too aggressive. We are just trying to apply some clarity. Everyone agrees that, for the arrangements to work properly and fairly, they need to be clear and balanced. Our amendments give them that clarity and balance and I see no reason why the Minister should not accept them. She should certainly look at them positively and, if she cannot accept them now, at least take our arguments away and come back on Report.

Richard Benyon: I find it rather difficult to approach this subject after the other parts of the Bill. It requires a bit of an intellectual leap to deal with the enforcement of the debts of some of the most vulnerable people in society and then with works of art of quite staggering value. It is nevertheless important and I understand why the Government have tacked the clause on to the Bill. We just want to get it right. It would be a shame if we ended up with legislation that was more lax than in other countries. It would be worth while if the Committee took a few moments to consider what happens in other countries.
Many countries require full disclosure and publication of all information on the loan and provide for claims to be made in a notice period prior to exhibition. Immunity will not be conferred in many countries if a claim is made within that notice period. In addition, in many cases, immunity ceases if it is discovered that a work of art has been stolen.
 In the United States there is federal and state law. Under federal law there are stringent conditions requiring full disclosure of all details of the loan of works of art six months prior to any exhibition, without which immunity will not apply. Details of that information include a copy of the lending agreement, full details of the items being imported and a statement giving information as to why anyone might want to attach the property. Under state law, all states, except New York, provide for immunity from civil claims. The protection does not apply where the theft of the work of art from its owner is alleged and found proven in court.
Canada offers a similar system to that in the US Federal Act and Canadian states operate a similar system to that in the majority of states in the US. In France, the Minister of Culture and the Minister of Foreign Affairs issue a joint decree for each exhibition, listing the cultural objects protected, determining the duration of a loan, and thus the protection, and identifying the exhibition organisers. The decree may be challenged by a third party within a period of two months—we are talking about a period of three months—from the date of publication in the Journal Officiel. Protection only becomes effective if no claims are made within that two-month period.
Obviously in Germany and Israel there are particular sensitivities which have already been alluded to. German law provides for immunity from seizures, but prevents the sale of an object on which immunity has been conferred. The law requires that the work of art be returned to the place of origin. In Israel, immunity will be conferred only on public, not on private lenders. Immunity will not be conferred where there is no legal remedy for a dispossessed owner in the country from which the loan originates.
Lastly, Switzerland has very strict rules. It requires that loan requests be published in the federal bulletin, describing the cultural property and its origin. People are entitled to claim ownership and such claims will prevent immunity from being conferred on the object in question. Switzerland also requires that the cultural property will be returned to the contracting state of origin, following the conclusion of the exhibition.
Precise and clear guidelines therefore exist in other countries. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend and the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey are designed to tighten up certain aspects of the rules and regulations. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that the guidelines are clear and on the face of the Bill.

Brooks Newmark: As always, it is a delight to see you in the Chair, Mrs. Humble. I shall simply address amendment No. 153 and then perhaps back up a couple of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk.
A rather significant controversy surrounds this part of the Bill, as it balances the broad issue of the public interest against personal loss. That is a difficult balance to strike, and is not made easier by the fact that it is an emotive subject for the many people who are affected by the looting of works of art. I recognise the efforts that the Government have made to meet the criticism that this aspect of the Bill received in the other place. I support amendment No. 153, however, because there should be no ambiguity about the requirement for due diligence. The best way to remove ambiguity is to refer specifically to the guidance that already exists from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It is necessary to refer to it, because although the general principles are in place, there is scope to tighten up on the details. I therefore ask the Minister for her assurance that her ministerial colleague in the DCMS will take this opportunity to review the guidelines.
 The injunction in the guidelines that museums should beware of fake documentation, for example, does not inspire me with confidence in the process of due diligence. It does not sound rigorous to me. My other concern is that the threshold for establishing provenance is 1970, I think, so no works of art that were acquired illicitly before that date—during the holocaust, for example—will be caught by the requirement for due diligence. I see the Minister shaking her head, so perhaps she will correct me on that point. I am aware that the 1970 threshold is in line with the UNESCO convention. Perhaps she will clarify the situation in respect of due diligence to be carried out on works of art that were acquired before that date.
 Finally, I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk that it is questionable whether the Bill is compatible with the UK’s support for the principles that were laid down at the 1998 Washington conference on holocaust-era assets. Furthermore, it undermines the moral and ethical guidelines, with which I am particularly concerned. They were laid down in the National Museum Directors Conference statement of principle, and proposed action on the spoliation of works of art during the holocaust and world war two. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Vera Baird: As everyone has said, the point of this part of the Bill is to provide immunity against seizure of objects. I shall come to the availability of other kinds of action, as mentioned by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, presently. For objects that are lent to the country from overseas for public display in a temporary exhibition at an approved—that is important—museum or gallery, immunity from seizure will apply where it is ordered by the court in relation to civil proceedings, or by any law enforcement authority that is seeking evidence in an investigation or to confiscate the proceeds of crime. The absence of that kind of general immunity for works of art lent to the country for inclusion in temporary exhibitions has made museums and private owners increasingly reluctant to lend to such exhibitions without a guarantee that their work will be returned.
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk cited the examples that I would have cited, so I will not repeat them. It is self-evident that this is a necessary change. It is obviously desirable that we remain a major world centre for artistic and cultural exhibitions, as we undoubtedly are. The two Opposition Front Benchers spoke with feeling about our role in that respect. They cited exhibitions that they enjoyed, so I shall pick my favourite, which was the Degas, Sickert and Toulouse-Lautrec exhibition at the Tate Britain. I thought that it was excellent and a tribute to the curators, who not only assembled it from a variety of sources, but arranged it comprehensibly and accessibly.
I have also recently attended the Tate Modern. I cannot see how the legislation would apply to the slides, which were the main exhibit, but they were none the less a great deal of fun. I would also like to refer in passing to having visited an exhibition of the works of Craigie Aitchison, who is a royal academician. He is noted for having done a good number of crucifixion scenes, and also for the fact that he incorporates—he does so even in those scenes, which is perhaps slightly curious—his favourite subject: Bedlington terrier dogs. As the proud owner of a Bedlington terrier—a dog who was Westminster dog of the year only a few years ago, let me say—it was a delight for me to meet Craigie Aitchison and discuss the breed with him.
I do not want, any more than did the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, to miss an opportunity to mention my local museums in Redcar. Kirkleatham Old Hall museum has permanent exhibitions relating to our maritime history; the history of our steel industry; our earlier history, from salt panning in the Tees estuary; and what I understand to have been a powerful role played by local people in action linked to the peasants’ revolt. I am very proud indeed that we were rebellious even then. Redcar also had the first ever lifeboat in the UK, and it is still in Redcar, exhibited in the Zetland Lifeboat museum. However, at this time one must express one’s indebtedness not to the public authorities that run the museum, but to the excellent volunteers who staff it for the significant benefit of the citizens of Redcar.
Clearly, this issue is very important. We all cherish and value the displays that we are privileged to see and it is a huge tribute to this Government that they are all now available free of charge. That is very different from when the Government of the party of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk were in office, when people from the sort of social classes that I represent in Redcar were quite unable to take their children to see exhibitions of the kind that I and others have cited. We have to measure very considerably the fact that that change has been made and it is fitting that we should pay tribute in this Committee to that excellent policy decision.
Let me make specific reference to the need for balance. Clearly, we are all lauding our own ability to enjoy all these works of art and cultural objects. Equally, there are those who have suffered appallingly the depredations of others, whose only link to a previous generation that was treated scandalously and appallingly is through objects that were themselves taken away, but can be rediscovered with appropriate diligence. It is therefore clear that we have a major duty to ensure a balance in the provision and that we are neither too onerous on the museums and the collections nor neglectful of the undoubted hurt that still lies behind the issues that I have referred to. We must not be the slightest bit neglectful of people’s need to know the origins of items that they suspect have come from their ancestors. We must not be neglectful at all of the importance of ensuring that such people have the information that they need to go through the process that I have set out.
We think that we have now got the balance right in this legislation. Before going any further, I pay tribute, as I think other Front Benchers have done, to the role played in the Lords by Ministers, including Baroness Ashton, and by other peers from all parties, who clearly applied themselves with great diligence to addressing the kinds of concerns expressed about the legislation. This part of the Bill is infinitely better as a result of the participation of all parties, for which the Government are very grateful. In particular, I would like to compliment Baroness Ashton, who has given me a relatively straightforward job to do in this House in connection with this part of the Bill. I would also like to pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who has played a very important liaison role with all of the interested groups that have been alluded to.
The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk made a passing suggestion—I do not think that it was seriously persevered with—that there ought to be more time to debate the issue. Of course, he has the whole of today to do so; do not let me tempt him, but if he wants to carry on, there is absolutely nothing to prevent him from doing so. I think that he was really just having a general prod at something or other, rather than seriously suggesting that there has not been abundant and ongoing consultation and debate that can continue on Report.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Lady’s observation. My point was that if we had had a dedicated Bill on this matter, there might have been more focus on it because we would have had a full Second Reading debate. However, it was difficult for us to focus so exclusively when we were talking about setting up operations such as tribunals and bailiffs.

Vera Baird: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that pointer to what he was suggesting. There was significant reference to this aspect of the Bill on Second Reading and much attention has been focused on it by all relevant interested parties. The Government have, as I have indicated, been very responsive to all that. It would not have been sensible to wait for another legislative vehicle when we needed to ensure that Britain remained important for the exhibition of cultural and artistic objects. We published a consultation document as long as a year ago and have worked diligently to ensure that everybody who needed to be asked and have their views heard has been consulted. I am grateful for the support of officials from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, who have helped me understand and take on the matter.
I am well aware that the Board of Deputies of British Jews has been interested in this topic. Baroness Ashton has met Lord Janner of Braunstone, the primary spokesman for that body, and I, too, have met him to discuss his concerns. So far have the Government gone to seek to please and satisfy, and remove all stress and anxiety expressed from that quarter that we have given a copy of this speaking note to that body to ensure that it covers all the areas about which it has hitherto been concerned. We have not heard back to suggest that it does not cover all appropriate areas, so I feel that there is a broad element of support for the balance that the Government have been able to strike.
Before moving to the substance of the amendments, the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk talked about legal proceedings not being available. Of course, legal proceedings may be brought, notwithstanding the immunity, which applies only to the item itself. For instance, during the loan period actions for damages could be brought. No museum will want to be sued for the value of a looted work of art, so there will be a powerful driver to ensure that museums observe due diligence as required under the legislation. We go a step further back in the application of those due diligence provisions than is proposed by Opposition Members, in that a museum cannot be approved unless it can demonstrate that it carries out appropriate due diligence. Those points needed making in relation to the hon. Gentleman’s speech.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about a formal procedure to register claims and receive further information. We will consider the circumstances in which further information should be provided by museums. The power given to the Secretary of State to make regulations under clause 129(9) would permit such a procedure to be established. We will explore that point in consultations with museums and all interest groups. I hope that he has no more fears along those lines.
It is not right that guidelines need to be published in the Bill. In the same way in which we attained a balance between the interests of museums and those of the other interest groups, we have attained an appropriate balance between what is in the Bill and what, for flexibility’s sake—including, for example, the need for revision and updating from time to time—ought to be in delegated legislation.
The hon. Member for Newbury mentioned other countries’ rules. I could provide a different list of other countries’ rules to counter what he said—alleging, I think, that our rules are a little bit on the soft side—but I will write to him rather than detain the Committee with factual examples.
The hon. Member for Braintree wanted the Government to undertake to review the guidelines. We appreciate the need to add to the current guidelines, and that is why we are not referring solely to them. We made it clear that the principles in the guidelines apply to Nazi-era objects, so the hon. Member for Braintree need not fear the 1970 threshold.
 I am grateful for the amendments as they allowed us to reconsider the matter, but they do not strengthen the position of potential claimants in comparison with our provisions. Clause 129(2) makes it clear that protection under this part of the Bill will be conditional on museums and galleries complying with the requirements for the publication of specified information about the objects that they propose to borrow, as we will set out in regulations.
We will engage in full consultation with all relevant interest groups on the content of the regulations, which we will publish in draft form. We have already made it clear that subject to consultation we propose to require museums to publish details about the objects that they intend to borrow two months before the start of an exhibition. That compares favourably with other countries; in Switzerland the period is only 30 days and in the United States, under the federal system, it is six weeks before importation. Amendment No. 179 would mean that the information did not need to be published until 72 hours after the object reached the United Kingdom, which would not give potential claimants any significant opportunity to raise their concerns before the object reached the UK.
The regulations will also say how information about an object should be published. It is clear from clause 129 that the information required from museums must be published, so amendment No. 180 would add nothing. We will seek to ensure that the information is made as available as possible to as many people as possible.

Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the Minister’s response to the amendment. What she says is persuasive and we will take note of it. I mean no discourtesy to her, but if you will permit it, Mrs. Humble, I will leave my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central to wrap up the debate, because I am required to be on duty in the abbey at 12 noon. I wanted to wait until the Minister had responded to the amendments, and I hope that she and the Committee will permit me to disappear before the end of her speech.

Vera Baird: We will miss the hon. Gentleman.
Amendment No. 182 is also unnecessary; it would not strengthen the provisions. We intend to require museums to publish sufficient information about an object to ensure that it can be identified by anyone who might have an interest in it. That will require the publication of some information about provenance, but it is unnecessary for the full provenance of an object to be published in every case. For example, a 17th century painting acquired by the Metropolitan museum of New York in the 19th century had remained in the Met’s collection since its original acquisition. Publication of the full provenance of that painting between the 17th century and its acquisition by the Met would not assist potential claimants to objects or art looted or stolen at any other time.

Henry Bellingham: My experience of art is that the early provenance of these paintings is usually very well documented, and listing full provenance would not be a burden. We are concerned about items, particularly associated with the Nazi holocaust, that may have been passed around different parts of Europe in the years after the last war. Focusing on that part of an object’s provenance is very important, but I would not have thought that seeing it in the context of the wider provenance would be a problem.

Vera Baird: As I have said, we are striving for a balance here. To put in place onerous requirements as to provenance, in a situation of the kind I have just set out, would not be of any assistance to potential claimants looking for objects looted during the Nazi era or stolen at any other time within memory. The amendment seems to us to put the balance too heavily in that direction.
We will also propose to require publication of the identity of the lender in advance of the exhibition, where the lender is a public body. More difficult issues arise in relation to the publication of the identity of private owners. We will need to discuss with museums and other interest groups whether and how it will be possible for that information to be made available to potential claimants.
Amendment No. 187 would require—that is the difference—the Secretary of State to make regulations to oblige museums and galleries to provide further information about an object in specified circumstances, but it may be possible to require all relevant information about a protected object to be published in advance of the exhibition when it would be most useful to potential claimants. Obviously, the earlier the better. In that case, the power would not be necessary. If consultations demonstrate that it is not appropriate for some information to be given general publication but that it could be provided to anyone concerned about a particular object on request, the power will be used in that way.
Amendment No. 188—

Henry Bellingham: Before the Minister moves on, I do not feel that she did amendment No. 187 justice. We want to replace “may” with “shall”, so that the provision read “shall make regulations”. We are talking about general regulations here; as I understand it, they are not specific. Surely it makes sense for the Secretary of State to be forced by the Bill to make those regulations, rather than having the option of doing so. Perhaps she can go into more detail.

Vera Baird: I think that I have given the hon. Gentleman a satisfactory answer. I think I can say without fear of contradiction from any quarter that the Secretary of State will make regulations in connection with that matter and I hope that that satisfies him and his colleagues. The Secretary of State will make regulations—there is no difficulty about that. It is imperative that he does. We see no purpose, therefore, in a heavier provision as proposed in amendment No. 187.
May I turn to amendment No. 188, which we say is not directly relevant to the Bill? The only objects that will be protected here are those which come to this country. Objects that are not included in an exhibition because of the decision of the borrowing museum or of the lender will not be protected. Their position is not changed by the Bill. Clause 129 requires at subsection (2)(d) that an item
“is brought to the United Kingdom for public display in a temporary exhibition”
and at subsection (7)(a) that an item continues to be here for the purposes of
“public display in a temporary exhibition at a museum or gallery”.
Once it ceases to be here for that purpose, it will not be protected. It will have exactly the same status as it had before. The amendment does not help, therefore. The position is not changed in any way by the Bill and it is not appropriate to make provision requiring museums to provide information on such items in the Bill or in regulations made under the Bill.
 Let me turn to the amendments on due diligence, which are to be imposed on approved museums and galleries. Amendment No. 153 deals with approval but, as drafted, clause 131(2) already requires the approving authority to take account of the extent to which the institution applying for approval already complies with the due diligence guidelines referred to in the amendment. Museums will also need to show that they comply with that guidance. I make it clear that no museum and no gallery will be approved unless it can show that it meets the high standards set in those guidelines.
It is not necessary to provide that the guidelines are applied to each and every protected object, as under amendment No. 153, or to make the immunity for a particular object conditional upon compliance with the guidelines, as under amendment No. 181. It is one of the basic principles set out in the due diligence guidelines published by the DCMS, that a museum should not acquire or borrow any item unless it is satisfied that there are no legal or ethical doubts about that item. That means that a museum will have to apply the due diligence guidelines to every item that it wishes to borrow. Failure to do that will amount to a failure to comply with the guidelines. As clause 131(3)(a) makes clear, that would threaten the approved status of the museum.
Amendment No. 189 would require provision to be made for the establishment of a new statutory body. That is not necessary. Non-statutory bodies such as the spoliation advisory panel and the reviewing committee for the export of works of art play a valuable role in carrying out a similar function to that proposed for the new body.
The DCMS will be working closely with an independent body, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, to ensure that the Secretary of State has access to appropriate advice on the due diligence procedures followed by museums seeking approval and that, following approval, museums' due diligence procedures and their compliance are subject to appropriate monitoring. We will be exploring the possibility of seeking advice from independent experts. 
I am sorry that this has taken a while to set out. However, I think that it was appropriate, because of the long history of concern, consultation and negotiation about the provisions, to set out why we think that we now have the balance right, and the way we have got it right. Although we are grateful for these probing amendments, they do not strengthen the provisions, which we feel represent the best balance that can be attained. With those words, I invite hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. We will be coming back to these issues on Report. I do not want to prolong the debate significantly, but I do not agree that it is unnecessary to strengthen subsection (9). I am not satisfied with the explanation about that and we may want to return to the matter on Report.
 We understand what the Minister said about our other amendments. She explained in some detail that amendment No. 182 does not add extra strength to the rights of any claimants. With regard to the provisions on due diligence, she made the point that clause 131(3)(a) already provides protection. However, we explained the arguments. We went into a lot of detail. Due diligence should not be left to the guidelines and the rather vague wording of that subsection. That is why we feel strongly that amendment No.153 would give that extra strength. I reserve the right to come back to that on Report and possibly even have a vote. I am tempted to have a vote now but the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey has had to go to Westminster abbey for the service on the abolition of slavery, and there is no point in having a vote and losing it very heavily. On Report, I hope that we might persuade a wider audience of the merits of our case.
On that basis, I will not press the amendments. I thank the Minister again for her explanations and the movement already made by the Government in another place. However, we will be returning to these issues and pushing them further at a later stage.

Jennifer Willott: As the hon. Gentleman has said, I am sure that we will return to these issues on Report. However, at this point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Joan Humble: I must tell the Committee that the amendment was moved by the hon. Lady’s colleague, the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, and only he can withdraw it. Therefore, I must put the question on amendment No. 179.

Amendment negatived.

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 183, in clause 129, page 99, line 25, leave out ‘and’.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 184, in clause 129, page 99, line 27, at end insert ‘, and
(c) only so long as the conditions in subsection (2) continue to be met.’.

Henry Bellingham: Amendment No. 183 is an enabling amendment. Subsection (4) states:
“The protection continues—
(a) only so long as the object is in the United Kingdom for any of the purposes in subsection (7)”—
the purposes that we discussed earlier—
“and
(b) unless subsection (5) applies, for not more than 12 months beginning with the day when the object enters the United Kingdom.”
After that, we would insert amendment No. 184, which is a small tidying-up amendment to add a little clarity.

Vera Baird: Under the current drafting, an object is entitled to protection if it complies with the conditions when it enters the UK. Subsection (4) provides for the continuation of that protection if two further conditions are met. The amendments would add a further condition to make an object’s ongoing protection conditional on its continuing to comply with all the conditions in the clause throughout its stay in the UK. I have a note that says, “This amendment is confused”—but I am not going to read that out.
The only conditions that might change over the period of the exhibition are the ownership of the objects and possibly their usual keeping place. However, if an object is returned either to a new home or the owner’s residence in the UK, it will no longer be protected anyway, and could be seized. I suppose that the underlying concern is that it is wrong to let objects change ownership when they are in the UK, but we do not think that it would be practical to monitor that. It is most likely to affect private lenders—public lenders are unlikely to dispose of objects in their collection, but a private owner wishing to sell his property to another owner overseas would not be obliged to tell the museum anyway and so we would have no way of discovering such information.
The legality of importing such objects into the UK is most appropriately tested when they enter. The fact of whether a museum published the required information two months in advance will not change during the exhibition. Of course, as I think that I said on the last group of amendments, if an object ceases to be in the UK for public display in a temporary exhibition, its protection ceases as well, unless damage has been caused in the UK and repairs are needed before it goes home—as a rule, I think that that would be pretty unlikely. I am not criticising Opposition Members for the confusion, but I hope that I have satisfied them that there is no need to add those amendments.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister. I do not think that the amendments are confused, but I take on board her light stricture. In the light of what she said, we shall give further consideration to the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 185, in clause 129, page 99, line 35, at end insert
‘, save that there must be at least three months between each period of protection.’.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 186 clause 129, page 99, line 35, at end insert
‘, save that the total period of protection shall not exceed 36 months in any period of five years.’.

Henry Bellingham: Subsection (6) states:
“A new period of protection begins each time an object enters the United Kingdom and the conditions in subsection (2) are met.”
I think it extremely unlikely that an object will come back into the UK after coming here for an exhibition. I suppose that it is just possible. For example, if there were a Monet exhibition in London, the painting in question might go back to where it had come from and then perhaps might return to the UK shortly afterwards. However, that is pretty unlikely.
Amendment No. 185 would add to subsection (6). Under the amendment, there
“must be at least three months between each period of protection”.
That is fair enough. The painting in question would go back to its owner or the gallery where it was normally on display, and it would be three months before it could be on loan again in the UK. It is most unlikely that such a state of affairs would arise, but let us assume that one such picture was in some way tainted. That would give the claimants some extra protection. The extra time is important.
Amendment No. 186 would add another proviso,
“that the total period of protection shall not exceed 36 months in any period of five years.”
Again, it is most unlikely that such a situation would arise, but legislation needs to allow for all eventualities, and we would not be diligent or assiduous in our role as legislators or parliamentarians if we were not prepared to look for unexpected eventualities. The eventuality provided for by the amendment would be highly unexpected, but the idea is that within a period of five years there should not be more than 36 months’ protection in total. That is fair and generous and gets the right balance, which is what the provisions are all about.
There was a discussion on Second Reading about what would happen if a work of art that was on exhibition in this country were to be sold to a new owner while it was here. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) raised the point, and there was some to-ing and fro-ing at the time, but I should be grateful if the Minister made things clear. Is it 100 per cent. clear to her that if a work of art were sold while it enjoyed the relevant immunity, the immunity would be removed at the point of sale, when the contract had effect? Alternatively, as some of the organisations that have advised us believe, would the immunity continue?

Vera Baird: I understand the intention behind amendments Nos. 185 and 186—that it should not be possible to get protection under the Bill indefinitely by bringing an object to the UK for the maximum period of 12 months, taking it away for a day and then bringing it back. However, the amendments are not necessary. Clause 129(4) already provides that the protection can continue only for 12 months, except in the case that I have already explained of an object that, having been damaged in the UK, is having that damage repaired in the UK.
The only objects that will be protected under the provisions—this is a feet-on-the-ground point, I suppose—are those brought to the UK for the purpose of a temporary exhibition at an approved museum or gallery. Museums will want to borrow only objects that are relevant to the theme of their exhibition. It would not be practical or possible—I think that the hon. Gentleman accepted that it would not be practical—for an owner to ensure that there was a succession of temporary exhibitions at approved museums on a theme that married up with the nature of his cultural object, so that those museums would, in sequence, borrow his work of art and secure its indefinite protection. Nor would I have thought that any lender would be prepared to subject his property to constant travel out of the UK to ensure its protection.
On the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks, a work of art could not be taken from exhibition to be sold in the UK; if it were, the protection would cease. It could be sold by private treaty to a new owner. We would not necessarily know that it had been sold. The protection would continue until it was returned from the exhibition to the owner.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. In other words, if the work of art were sold privately and secretly, by definition, the immunity would continue. However, am I right that immunity would be withdrawn if the sale were public—if, during or immediately after the exhibition, the picture, work of art or cultural object in question were auctioned and a public sale were announced to the Inland Revenue, for example?

Vera Baird: Yes, I think that that is correct. If I am not right about that, I will write to the hon. Gentleman and indicate the contrary. It is probably the case that the work ceased to be here for public display in a temporary exhibition. If it is taken away to be auctioned at Sotheby’s for tax purposes, the fundamental conditions have been broken. If I find that that is incorrect, and that there is a loophole of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is anxious about, I will write to him before Report. He will then have every opportunity to come back and fill that loophole, if we find one.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister, who has been as generous as ever in trying to explain the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 130

Effect of protection

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Vera Baird: It seems wise to move that the clause should stand part, as it is an important and heavily debated part of the Bill. It is also relatively short. Clause 130 clarifies the extent of the protection that will be given to objects and sets out the single exception that we propose where immunity will not apply.
 The immunity that we propose will prevent any order being made in civil proceedings that would affect the custody or control of the object. It will not be possible, for example, for a court to order seizure of the object as a form of interim relief or in execution of a judgment debt. Nor will it be possible for an object to be seized in criminal proceedings, or as part of a criminal investigation.  There will, however, be an exception to the immunity where seizure is required under the UK’s obligations in international law or in European Union law. Perpetrators of crime will not be able to hide behind immunity from seizure. As subsection (2) makes clear, the protection given will only apply to the object and will not protect people dealing with it from prosecution if they have committed an offence.
Our proposals will prevent potential claimants from having a work of art seized in this country until their claims have been decided. However, that only removes one form of relief from such claimants. As I have said, it is still possible for claims of damages to be made against any person or institution whose dealings with the object have contravened the claimant’s rights to it, and for a full trial to be held of all the relevant issues.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. The clause makes sense and we have no quibbles with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 130 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 131

Relevant museums and galleries

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 190, in clause 131, page 101, line 6, after ‘particular,’, insert ‘it must withdraw approval’.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 191, in clause 131, page 101, line 10, after ‘reason)’, insert
‘and the institution has failed to improve its procedures having received a warning from the appropriate authority specifying a reasonable time frame in which to do so.’.
No. 192, in clause 131, page 101, line 12, at end insert 
‘and, in the case of failure which is capable of remedy, has failed to remedy the failure having received a warning from the appropriate authority specifying a reasonable time frame in which to do so.’.
No. 193, in clause 131, page 101, line 15, at end insert 
‘unless it can be shown that the object was wrongly granted protected status as a result of an inadequate due diligence procedure in relation to that object.’.

Henry Bellingham: We have already discussed clause 131 in the context of amendment No. 153 on due diligence. However, it is important to spend some time on the clause and on the amendments. I shall try to put them in the context of the Bill.
 The clause is headed “Relevant museums and galleries” Subsection (1) explains what a museum or gallery is, which is fairly straightforward. Subsection (2) states:
“The matters that the appropriate authority must have regard to when deciding whether to approve an institution include—
(a) the institution’s procedures for establishing the provenance and ownership of objects”—
we have discussed that briefly—
“and
(b) in particular, compliance by the institution with guidance about such procedures published by the Secretary of State from time to time.”
Subsection (3) states:
“The appropriate authority may withdraw approval from an institution if it thinks fit, and, in particular, if—
(a) it thinks that the institution’s procedures for establishing the provenance or ownership of objects are inadequate (because of the institution’s failure to comply with guidance published by the Secretary of State or for some other reason), or
(b) the institution has failed to comply with a requirement of regulations under section 129(9).”
We discussed clause 129 earlier.
Amendment No. 190 would add to subsection (3) after the word “particular” the condition that the authority “must withdraw approval”. In other words, the clause should state that the appropriate authority
“may withdraw approval from an institution if it thinks fit,”
and in particular “must withdraw approval” in the circumstances listed.
That would pave the way for amendment No. 191, which would insert at the end of the first reason in subsection (3) the words “and the institution”—a museum, gallery or other centre—
“has failed to improve its procedures having received a warning from the appropriate authority specifying a reasonable time frame in which to do so.”
That relates to procedures that an institution has in place for due diligence and for exhibiting works of art or cultural objects from abroad. It would apply if there had been a warning. We did not discuss spot checks carried out by the DCMS, and my concern about their not being adequate, at any great length earlier, and the Minister did not comment on them. The amendment relates to cases in which a warning has been made by the DCMS and there has been no action on it.
Amendment No. 192 would add to subsection (3)(b) the words
“and, in the case of failure which is capable of remedy, has failed to remedy the failure having received a warning from the appropriate authority specifying a reasonable time frame in which to do so.”
That would apply if, in the normal course of procedure, a remedy could have been put in place. Amendment No. 193 would add to subsection (4) the words
“unless it can be shown that the object was wrongly granted protected status as a result of an inadequate due diligence procedure in relation to that object.”
I dare say that to some extent the amendments would really have come into play had our amendment No. 153, which was in a previous group, been accepted and had the Minister accepted that due diligence should be covered in the Bill. We shall return to that point, but even without amendment No. 153 these amendments would not place onerous burdens on a gallery or exhibition organiser. We are simply saying that if they have been asked to improve their procedures and have not done so, if they have been guilty of a failure in their procedures, and if they have not done what they said they would do, there should be some tightening up so that it is possible for approval to be withdrawn.
The clause allows the Department to withdraw approval from an institution, but we feel that it is too laxly drafted. The amendments would tighten it up not hugely but significantly. In the light of representations that have been made to us, it is not unfair to ask the Minister to consider the amendments and, if she does not accept them, at least to explain why she believes the clause to be adequate.

Jennifer Willott: I want briefly to highlight the views of the Liberal Democrats on the issue: unusually for this Bill, we do not agree with the Conservative amendments to this part. We feel that this is a matter that should be left to the discretion of the authorities when they are working out the circumstances of a particular case. We feel that the amendments are over-prescriptive, and that it should be left to the appropriate authorities as laid out in subsection (5) to determine their own procedures and make their own decisions on particular cases rather than having it laid out precisely in the Bill.

Vera Baird: The amendments relate, as the hon. Gentleman said, to the power that the appropriate authority is given under subsection (3) to withdraw approval from an institution if it thinks fit, and specifying in particular whether it thinks that the institution’s procedures for establishing provenance or ownership are inadequate because of its failure to comply with the Secretary of State’s guidance, or for any other reason, or the institution has failed to comply with a requirement of the regulations under clause 129(9).
The amendments would require that approval be withdrawn if, as amendment No. 191 says,
“the institution has failed to improve its procedures having received a warning from the appropriate authority specifying a reasonable time frame”,
and, as amendment No. 192 says,
“in the case of failure which is capable of remedy, has failed to remedy the failure having received a warning from the appropriate authority specifying a reasonable time frame”.
I shall pause there, because amendment No. 193 is a little different. Again, we sympathise very much with the amendments, but we do not think that it is necessary, and possibly not practical, to limit the discretion given to the appropriate authority in subsection (3) in the way that the three amendments would do.
The Secretary of State is required to act reasonably and proportionately in exercising any discretionary power, and that applies to the power in subsection (3) as much as to any other. Removal of approved status in the cases set out in paragraphs (a) and (b), without sufficient warning, or giving a reasonable time to a museum to rectify faults that have been identified but may not have been 100 per cent. rectified, could be regarded as acting unreasonably in a case where the continuing failure could still be rectified in relation either to due diligence or the provision of information. 
Obviously, we will none the less keep the power to act without notice in any case where it can be justified, such as where such an action would be reasonable and proportionate, as we are required to behave. We want museums to know that, when they have approval under these provisions, and they decide that it is no longer necessary to carry out due diligence, there is a risk that their approved status will be removed with little or no warning. We want them to know that we have that  power. However, we think that there is an element of over-prescriptiveness here, and that we have to act reasonably and proportionately in the exercise of the power under subsection (3). We prefer, overwhelmingly, to leave the subsection as it is.
I turn now to amendment No. 193, which is a little different. We considered carefully whether the removal of a museum’s approved status should also entail the removal of protected status from any object on temporary exhibition at the museum on that date. We concluded that that was not practical. There would be considerable scope for dispute as to whether the decision to borrow a particular item was due to inadequate due diligence on the part of the museum, and it would not be clear under the amendment which objects were entitled to immunity and which were not. Lenders would be reluctant to make loans, as they would see such a provision weakening the value of the immunity, because they could not be given a guarantee that their objects would be returned.
The efficacy and effectiveness of spot checks was raised by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. We see spot checks as one means, but only one means, which we will most definitely use to police, as it were, the way that museums and galleries behave under these provisions. However, we intend to explore with the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council and others to see how else we might enforce the requirements on due diligence and information. Spot checks will not be the only way forward if other realistic proposals are made to the Government during the consultations that we will hold on regulations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured enough not to press the amendments.

Henry Bellingham: For the first time in the Committee we have the Minister and the Liberal Democrats ranged against us, so there is not much point in pursuing the issue. However, I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation, particularly on spot checks and the fact that they will not be the only weapon in the armoury, as it were, and that other procedures will be put in place. I wait with interest to learn what those other procedures will be. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Vera Baird: The clause defines the terms “museum” and “gallery” and sets out the conditions that institutions must meet to gain approval for immunity from seizure. Only those museums and galleries that are approved for immunity will be able to benefit from the protection provided by the Bill. We expect applications for approval to be made by our national museums and by the major regional museums.
Before any institution can expect to be approved, it will need to demonstrate to the Secretary of State or the appropriate authority in the devolved Administrations that it carries out strict due diligence checks on the objects it proposes to borrow. In assessing museums, the Secretary of State will look closely at a museum’s procedures for establishing the  provenance and ownership of objects, and the extent to which it complies with the guidance on such procedures that will be published by the DCMS from time to time.
As we discussed earlier, subsection (3) will allow the Secretary of State to withdraw the approved status of a museum at any time if it becomes apparent that it is not maintaining sufficiently high standards of due diligence. Subsection (4) ensures that objects in an exhibition that are protected under the provisions will not lose that protection if an institution loses its approved status during the period of the loan.
Subsections (1) and (5) enable Scottish and Welsh Ministers, and the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in Northern Ireland, to approve institutions within their respective territory for immunity from seizure. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Henry Bellingham: It may be an appropriate time at which to ask the Minister these two questions. First, the issues of exhibitions, loans and the granting of immunities are presumably devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, which we very much hope will be given an injection of life in the coming few weeks. What happens if the devolved institutions do not introduce legislation? Is there a possibility that that might happen, and if so, will it create problems?
Secondly, going back to a matter that we discussed earlier, to what extent will there be ongoing consultation between the Minister and her colleagues at the DCMS? Is she satisfied that protocols are in place to ensure that officials from the two Departments will work together closely? I do not see how this part of the Bill will fulfil its purposes when enacted, or that it will be fit for purpose, if the two Departments are unable to work together closely on an ongoing basis and in a properly resourced way. Perhaps she will provide some comfort on those points.

Vera Baird: The Bill is UK-wide, so the provisions are even, as it were. The devolved powers will allow Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Ministers to approve institutions within their respective territories.
There is no difficulty between the two Departments. I cannot comment on whether there is a formal protocol, but it is clear that officials within the DCA and the DCMS have worked extremely closely to ensure that the provisions are properly consulted on and that they go forward—I am accompanied by officials from both Departments this morning.

Henry Bellingham: This part of the Bill is UK-wide, so the relevant Ministers in the Parliament and the two Assemblies could introduce regulations that will not be amendable. I suppose that those regulations could be voted down, and if they were, there would be a problem. The UK-wide legislation would still apply but without the relevant regulations in place. Perhaps the Minister could just explain that in a little more detail.

Vera Baird: I think that I had better write to the hon. Gentleman about that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 131 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 132

Interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Vera Baird: This clause provides further interpretation to the terms used throughout the immunity from seizure clauses. The most important in this context is “public display”, which is defined to include any display to which the public have admission, except displays with a view to sale. Objects included in an exhibition put on by a major auction house to advertise an auction will not qualify for immunity.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 133

Crown application

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Vera Baird: This clause ensures that these provisions apply to the Crown. Without this provision the immunity would not be effective against agents of the Crown, such as HM Revenue and Customs. This would significantly reduce the value of the immunity we are granting.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 134 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 22 agreed to.

Clauses135 to 139 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 140

Power to make supplementary or other provision

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 155, in clause 140, page 109, line 12, at end add—
‘(8) The Lord Chancellor must consult any interested parties before making an order under this section.’.
Clause 140 follows on from clause 139, which talks about the protected function of the Lord Chancellor. I am interested in subsection (1), where it says:
“The Lord Chancellor (or, in relation to Chapter 3 of Part 5 only, the Secretary of State)”.
Perhaps the Bill knows something we do not and anticipates the fact that the Lord Chancellor may be an extinct species at some stage in the future. I thought that the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State were one and the same person. It was in that light that we tabled the amendment.
Subsection (2) says:
“An order under this section may in particular”
and then gives details in paragraphs (a) and (b). Subsections (3) to (7) explain the orders in more depth. These are important orders. We feel that the Lord Chancellor should consult interested parties. There is nothing in the Bill to ensure that that consultation takes place. It might be obvious to the Minister and to  other members of the Committee that the consultation with interested parties would take place in any event, but why not say so in the Bill to add the extra discipline that we believe is needed?

Vera Baird: The amendment would require the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State—it is the same person—to consult any interested parties before making orders under the clause. In fact, to return to the question of the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor, when I look more closely, I think that we are referring to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That is why there is what looks like a double reference, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out, as I did not grasp the point. That is the answer to that problem.
The clause is a safety net that is intended to ensure that the Bill can be effectively implemented. It supplements the rest of the provisions and can be used only alongside one of those provisions, including specific order-making powers. As hon. Members are well aware, a detailed policy statement has been published. That explains how the order-making powers in the Bill would be used and sets out our commitment to extensive consultation when we use those powers.

Brooks Newmark: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk, but the Minister’s response has given me cause for concern. If she did not understand what was in the Bill, surely the public will not do so, so it would be appropriate to have some clarification on the point about the Secretary of State.

Vera Baird: I have just given exactly that clarification. It is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Can I say more?

Brooks Newmark: I appreciate that the Minister has verbally given that explanation. Perhaps I am a novice who needs these things explained, but given that the reference to the Secretary of State is ambiguous, notwithstanding that she has told us to whom it refers, should there not be a closer definition in the Bill? That is what I was asking.

Vera Baird: We might change the name, but then we would be stuck with an inappropriate appellation in the Bill. The real point is that clause 103 introduces measures on behalf of the Insolvency Service, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. The purpose of allowing both Secretaries of State the power is to cover that provision, but it is the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is referred to in clause 140.
 The detailed policy statement that we published sets out how the specific order-making powers, to which these are ancillary and supplementary, will be used. It says unambiguously, as I am now doing, that we will consult extensively when we use the order-making powers. The proposed amendment would require consultation for literally every consequential or transitional order made under clause 140. That could be hugely resource intensive and would not give much positive benefit, so we could not dream of agreeing to it. There are effective and proportionate safeguards in the clause to ensure that any order amending or repealing an Act has to be approved by both Houses.
I hope that that reassurance, and our unambiguous statement that we will consult where appropriate, as we have said in the policy document, are sufficient to persuade the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk not to press the amendment.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister, and I shall not press the amendment. May I ask her, however, to reflect again on subsection (1) and the words
“or, in relation to Chapter 3 of Part 5, only, the Secretary of State”?
We often talk about the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State in the context of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, because they are one and the same person. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree raises a good point, however, and we need clarification in the Bill, although I take on board the Minister’s point. We keep hearing that, should the current Chancellor of the Exchequer ever become Prime Minister, one of his first moves could be to scrap the DTI, so if we inserted a reference to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, it could be obsolete pretty quickly. Perhaps we should insert the words “the relevant Secretary of State”, however, which would immediately lead anyone reading the Bill to conclude that neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs were being referred to. Will the Minister therefore consider tabling an amendment on Report to insert the word “relevant” before “Secretary of State”?

Vera Baird: I am grateful for the suggestion, although I think it is plain enough that, since we are talking only about chapter 3 of part 5 and the relevant Secretary of State is consequently the head of the Department of Trade and Industry, that is who we are talking about. I am helpfully prompted to survey, as I shall indeed do shortly, every clause in the Bill, as I am told that it always refers to the Lord Chancellor when we mean the Lord Chancellor, and never calls him the Secretary of State. However, I will double check that, so that the Opposition Members are satisfied.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 140 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 141 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 23 agreed to.

Clause 142 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 143

Commencement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jennifer Willott: Given that the clause is about when different parts of the Bill will come into force, I want to reiterate our concern about the proposal that there should be an interim regime in which bailiffs have extra  powers before the registration system has been brought in to regulate them. We are concerned about the timing of the introduction of that part of the Bill, before the registration scheme is introduced. Throughout our proceedings, the Minister has commented on the timing of the introduction of various parts, but I wanted to say that we are not satisfied that the interim measures are appropriate. We feel that the introduction of the additional powers for bailiffs should be delayed until a registration scheme such as the one that was discussed can be introduced.

Vera Baird: I thought that the hon. Lady was here when I announced last week that the only new power for bailiffs, namely to make an application to the court for consent to use, as a last resort, reasonable force to enter private premises, will not come into force until the regulatory system is in place. The system in the Bill, which will—I have put it this way before—beef up the current certification process, will not be the system that applies to the use of that power. Again, the use of that power will be made available only when the full regulation system is in place. I hope that she is now twice assured.

Brooks Newmark: Again, I would like to ask the Minister for clarification. The explanatory notes state:
“Clause 143 provides for the Lord Chancellor”—
again, the next phrase appears in brackets—
“or the Secretary of State in relation to Chapter 3 of Part 5”
and so on. Can the Minister again clarify whether the provision refers to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry?

Vera Baird: In references to chapter 3 of part 5, the responsibility will lie either with the Lord Chancellor or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Jennifer Willott: I accept the point that the Minister made previously. However, we still have concerns that changes are being made to the bailiff system before the introduction of the registration scheme. Over the past few years, a lot of concern has been raised about the need for a proper registration scheme for bailiffs. We remain unhappy that that part of the proposals has been delayed significantly and that there is a need for an interim measure, which we do not agree with.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 144

Short title

Vera Baird: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 144, page 110, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
This is purely a technical amendment to remove the privilege amendment inserted by the House of Lords because the Bill contains financial provisions. This is to ensure that the Commons’ financial privilege was not infringed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 144, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 5

Concurrent jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and public sector ombudsmen
‘(1) In section 5 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13), omit subsection (2).
(2) In section 26 of the Local Government Act 1974 (c. 7), omit subsection (6).
(3) In section 4 of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 (c. 46), omit subsection (1).’.—[Mr. Bellingham.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 I am grateful to you, Mrs. Humble. This is the last time that I will trouble the Committee this morning and perhaps even today. The new clause would extend the scope of ombudsmen in various ways. I refer the Committee to a report published by Lord Justice Woolf in 1996. He recommended that the relationship between ombudsmen and the courts should be broadened, enabling issues to be referred by ombudsmen to the courts and by the courts to the ombudsmen, obviously with the consent of all those involved. That makes sense. The new clause would remove some of the impediments that are currently in place. Obviously, the impediments—the tight rules—were put in place to ensure that ombudsmen did not trespass on or usurp the jurisdiction of courts or tribunals. Over time, developing case law has narrowed the discretion of ombudsmen in a way that has been seen to present them with severe difficulties and has created some injustice for complainants. This is quite an arcane point, but it is important. We have plenty of constituents who come to our surgeries and advice centres and complain about various matters, either local or national, and want us to refer them to the ombudsman. When it comes to the parliamentary ombudsman, the MP has to endorse the complaint before it can be referred. Many of us have been put in the invidious position of deciding whether to sign up to a complaint. I think that most of us, to keep the peace, tend to go along with what the constituent wants on the basis that if that is what they feel needs doing, we should support them.
Very often, cases go to an ombudsman when a concurrent legal case is under way. Having looked at the way in which case law has developed—I do not want to go into a long discussion about it now—I think that we need to follow Lord Woolf’s suggestion and broaden the relationship between the ombudsmen and the courts. That means that the issues can be referred either way.
The new clause has the support of the head of the administrative court, Mr. Justice Collins, and the senior president of tribunals designate, Lord Justice Carnwath. That is quite an endorsement. In the spirit of good will, given that lunch is pending and the Minister is in a good mood—her officials look demob happy—perhaps she could give us something to take away by accepting the new clause.

Vera Baird: The new clause would give the ombudsman the discretion to investigate cases in which court proceedings had been started. I am sympathetic to it, but I do not think that we can take it forward now. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the law has developed significantly since 1967, when the ombudsman legislation was passed. Much of what was then maladministration and thus without legal remedy is now potentially a legal failure and subject to judicial review. Judicial review is subject to tight time limits; complainants who think that they have that remedy have to move quickly to claim it. The ombudsman has discretion to pursue cases that have a legal remedy but no proceedings, but the courts have ruled—inevitably, given the 1967 Act—that there is no discretion if proceedings have been started, even if the action is effectively moribund. Those cases, which are better dealt with by the ombudsman, are obstructed by that mechanism.
The hon. Gentleman rightly rehearsed the history of the matter, and more detail could indeed be sketched in, if time allowed. We considered an identical proposal made by his noble Friend Lord Newton, which was that we could make changes now, so that people were not inconvenienced and cases did not run the risk of injustice because of the 1967 legislation. My noble Friend Baroness Ashton indicated that she would consider the issue further. She held some round table discussions, in which it was agreed that there were complex issues that would have to be resolved before we could go forward. They arise particularly in judicial review cases; they need to be dealt with quickly, for the sake of both complainants and public authorities, so that they know what they need to do to continue administration. Judicial review has tight time limits, so we have to get the balance right between those who have a genuine grievance and those who are looking for a reason to prevent the legitimate outcome of the decision from being put into effect.
The Law Commission is undertaking work on remedies in public law. That includes the relationship between the courts and the ombudsman. Bearing in mind the wealth of difficulties that arose when my noble Friend, with the best intentions, tried to resolve the issue sufficiently quickly to put something in the Bill, we think that the better course is to let the Law Commission take its customary mature, rounded view and bring forward a report in due course. Its expertise and independence will allow the best balance of conclusions to be reached. For those reasons, my noble Friend did not return to the issue in the other place after she had indicated that she would try her best. We do not feel that we are in a position to accept the new clause at present, but work is ongoing in this area and the Government are well apprised of the mischief that the hon. Gentleman so pertinently pointed out.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister. I think that one can mark that as six out of 10—a minor victory—given that the proposal will be taken forward. I would be grateful if she could keep my noble Friend Lord Kingsland and me informed of the progress that is made. If there is anything that we can to do assist, we will most certainly do it. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered,
That certain written evidence already reported to the House be appended to the proceedings of the Committee.—[Vera Baird.]

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Vera Baird: On a point of order, Mrs. Humble. I thank all parties for the way in which the Bill has been perused, probed and improved and for how our understanding of its import has been broadened and deepened by the deliberations of the Committee. I thank you, Mrs. Humble, and, in his absence, Mr. Bercow, for the very pleasant and fair way in which you have chaired our proceedings. I also thank your Clerk. I have served on Committees on which he has clerked before. His advice is matchless; he is an immense asset. We would be in great difficulty if we did not have such an expert person with us.
I thank the officials, who have helped me greatly with the Bill. I also thank the Hansard writers and the officials who have looked after the doors. Mercifully, they have not been required to go out and shout “Division” often, because we have been able to agree on a Bill that had already been substantially improved in the other place.
I have enjoyed taking my first Bill through Committee. I have been accused of being trendy, but it was said that the Bill was not sexy and it was suggested that I should design a uniform for bailiffs. Presumably it was a case of giving me any job that stopped me talking about the Bill. I joke, of course, because the exchanges have been in the main very pleasant and very helpful.
I thank very much the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk for the attention that he has given to the Bill. It has been good to have the company of the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey. I thank all my hon. Friends for their diligent following of the issues raised in Committee and I thank Opposition Members for the attention that they have paid to the issues. It is a better Bill for our deliberations and I am very grateful indeed to all who have played a role.

Henry Bellingham: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Humble. I endorse the Minister’s thanks, particularly to you and to Mr. Bercow, and to the senior Clerk and to his deputy, Dr. Weston, who has also been very helpful. I thank everyone who has been involved with the Committee for the very efficient way in which it has been managed. We all know that such Committees would not run smoothly if it was not for the officials who lay out the papers and attend to our every need. I also thank the police, who attend to the doors and ensure that everything goes smoothly.
I agree that this has been a good-humoured Committee. We have had plenty of time to debate the issues and I am very grateful to the usual channels for ensuring that time to debate the issues has been made available. I do not think that anyone can complain that we have not had that time. I agree with the Minister that we are now more knowledgeable about the Bill. Opposition Members are disappointed that we have not secured all the changes that we would like, but of course we reserve the right to return to the relevant issues on Report.
I am very grateful to the various organisations outside the House that have kept Opposition Front Benchers fully briefed and informed. We do not have the resource and the huge intellectual capacity of the civil service to brief us, but we are privileged and fortunate to have many outside organisations that take a great interest in these matters and they take every opportunity to ensure that we can table amendments and speak to them. I am grateful to those organisations for that and I look forward to returning to the Bill on Report. I also look forward to perhaps serving under your chairmanship again at some stage in the future, Mrs. Humble.

Jennifer Willott: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Humble. I echo all the thanks that have been given. This is the first such Committee of which I have been a member, and it has been an interesting induction to the process of Committee work. I thank you, Mrs. Humble, and Mr. Bercow, for your patience with those of us who are new to such work. I have learned more this morning about parliamentary procedure and moving and withdrawing amendments than I would have thought possible, and I have learned significantly more about the inner workings of tribunals than I ever thought I wanted to know. It has been a very interesting experience. I thank everyone very much.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at six minutes to One o’clock.